Why God? Why?

First Kevin Federline. Now Paris Hilton. Excuse me while I put a gun in my mouth.

Man + Mustache + OSU Wardrobe = Pervert

It has not been a good week for mustached men wearing OSU wardrobe. First, OSU fan, Mike Cooper, gets grilled by an investigative reporter after a hidden camera catches him jerking off to porn in a public library. Now another mustached man wearing an OSU hat was busted for trying to seduce what he thought was a 15 year old girl but turned out to be a someone from the watchdog group, Perverted Justice. Who knew that mustached OSU fans could be so creepy? All I know is that if I see a mustached man in an OSU t-shirt, I'm running in the opposite direction.

Editor's Note: I stole the title of my post from The M Zone.

Happy Memorial Day

While we're enjoying barbecues with friends and family today, let us not forget those who have sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms that we so often take for granted.

A Fine Representative of Ohio State Fans

What do you get when you have a man with a mustache wearing an Ohio State sweatshirt, video evidence of him masterbating in a library, an investigative reporter asking him about that video evidence and crazied combat veteran? One of the funniest videos you will ever see.

The Arrogance of Congressmen and Senators Part II

They still just don't get it:

In a rare bipartisan action, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi demanded yesterday that the Justice Department immediately return documents that were seized when federal agents raided the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) as part of a bribery probe.

Noting that "no person is above the law, neither the one being investigated nor those conducting the investigation," Hastert (R-Ill.) and Pelosi (D-Calif.) asserted that the Justice Department must cease reviewing the documents and ensure that their contents are not divulged. Once the papers are returned, "Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights," the statement said.

The demands by Hastert and Pelosi further escalated a separation-of-powers conflict between Congress and the White House. The raid on Jefferson's office last weekend was the first time that the FBI has executed a search warrant on the Capitol Hill office of a sitting lawmaker.

The Justice Department initially signaled an unwillingness to return the documents. But White House officials are concerned about the vigorous and repeated complaints of the congressional leaders and have pressed the Justice Department to find a way to placate Congress and defuse the controversy, according to a department official.

Many Republicans and Democrats contend that the unprecedented raid on a congressional office was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government, which is meant to shelter lawmakers from administrative intimidation. Legal scholars are divided on this issue, however, and some said yesterday that the raid does not violate the letter of the Constitution or subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court.

The FBI is investigating allegations that Jefferson, who represents flood-ravaged New Orleans, took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his congressional influence to promote high-tech business ventures in Africa. The eight-term House member has denied wrongdoing and told reporters this week that he intends to run for reelection in November. Jefferson also rejected a call by Pelosi to temporarily vacate his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee, the chief tax-writing panel, pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) announced yesterday that he will hold a hearing on the "profoundly disturbing" questions that he said the Justice Department's actions have raised.

A Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations, said after the Hastert-Pelosi joint statement was released that "the department will not agree to any arrangement or demand that would harm or hurt an ongoing law enforcement investigation."

"We are in discussions with them on something that would preserve law enforcement interests while also allaying their institutional concerns," the official said. "But our position is that we did it legally and we did it lawfully, and we're not going to back away from that."

If you think that's bad, check out this story:

The House Judiciary Committee has just announced a rare recess hearing, set for next Tuesday, entitled, "RECKLESS JUSTICE: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"

I swear these guys must live in some kind of alternate universe because almost no one outside of the Hill agrees with them. See here, here and here (in the interests of fairness, here's one idiot that agrees with Hastert and Pelosi). Not to mention, as I pointed out in my post yesterday, their separation of powers of argument is pathetic:

Given that the FBI obtained a warrant, what would the legal theory be that the search was unconstitutional?

I don't think the Fourth Amendment provides such an argument. If the government can execute a warrant at a newspaper, or at a lawyer'’s office, why not a Congressional office? Of course, Congress could pass a law prohibiting searches of Congressional offices, Cf. The Privacy Protection Act, but they haven'’t done so.

A more likely theory would be the Speech and Debate clause, Art. I, 6, cl. 1:

The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Given that executing a search warrant involves neither an arrest nor questioning, it would seem to me that the Clause isn'’t applicable. Further, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626-27 (1972), seems to suggest that Congress is not generally exempt from criminal process under the Clause:

Article I, 6, cl. 1 . . . does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases. Quite the contrary is true. While the Speech or Debate Clause recognized speech, voting, and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that might otherwise attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts. If [the conduct under investigation] would be a crime under an Act of Congress, it would not be entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause. It also appears that the grand jury was pursuing this very subject in the normal course of a valid investigation.

I thought I could not be more disgusted with Congress after all their recent ineptness, but Congress has found a way to out do themselves. Why am I not surprised that no one trusts Congress these days.

P.S. While I spent much of this post yet again ripping Congressmen and Senators for their arrogance, I would like to commend one, Senator John Warner, who said the following today, "I think it's very important that Congress be treated no differently than the average citizen when it comes to criminal matters." Thank you Senator Warner. I just wish more of colleagues agreed with your point of view.

The Arrogance of Congressmen and Senators

The big story out of Washington, D.C., the past few days has the been the bribery scandal involving Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 from an FBI informant at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington last July and of which the FBI found $90,000 concealed in food containers and tin foil in a freezer in his Northwest DC home, according to a 83 page court affidavit released on Sunday. That affidavit served as the basis for FBI agents to execute a search warrant at Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building. While Jefferson's outrage to the search of his office was not unexpected and expectedly humorous (apparently, he was just holding that $100,000 for a friend and that $90,000 they found in his freezer, he just put the money in there because he didn't want it to spoil), the outrage from his fellow Congressmen and Senators from both parties was quite surprising:

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker. The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

Republican leaders, who previously sought to focus attention on the Jefferson case as a counterpoint to their party's own ethical scandals, said they are disturbed by the raid. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he is "very concerned" about the incident and that Senate and House counsels will review it.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

To borrow a phrase from ABC's John Stossel: Give me a break. The last time I checked my constitution, Congressmen and Senators could be criminally investigated, indicted and convicted just like any other citizen could be. There's no special sanctity with a Congressmen's or a Senator's office that prevents law enforcement officials from executing a search warrant like they would at any other citizens' workplace. This separation of powers argument being thrown around by some on the Hill is downright laughable. While the search of Jefferson's office is unprecedented, I'm willing to bet that this search warrant was more carefully scrutinized than your typical search warrant brought before a federal judge, which is probably why the FBI wrote such a long affidavit to support their search warrant. I don't think this search warrant executed on William Jefferson is going to lead to weekly searches of Congressmen's offices by the FBI. If Congressmen and Senators are so worried about the FBI searching their offices, I offer a simple solution: Don't take bribes.

My already low opinion of Congress just went a little lower today.

Sox Bats Supply Punch, Cubs Supply Punches

That headline above is probably my favorite newspaper sports headline that I've seen in a long while. Outside of the Sox winning a championship, nothing makes me happier than to see the Sox succeed and the Cubs suffer. Needless to say, I've been a very happy man the past couple of days and my happiest moment occurred in the second inning yesterday after A.J. Pierzynski ran over Michael Barrett, empathetically slapped the plate, bumped into Barrett, who then connected on a right hook to A.J's face, barely fazing A.J. and started a bench clearing brawl (video below). While a lot of people are saying that A.J. deserved it (here and here), I think that punch was just Barrett's frustration with the Cubs season boiling over. The Cubs are in fourth place and the way they're playing right now, they could easily be in last place within a week. The Cubs are dead last in the National League in most offensive categories. Other than Zambrano and Maddux, their starting pitching has been a mess. That punch showed, "Hey we suck ass. We can't win any games. Let's see if we can at least win a fight." Unfortunately for the Cubs, that fight just screwed them over even more. Barrett is one of the few guys actually hitting and now the Cubs are likely going to be without him for 5 to 10 games and in Barrett's place will be the light hitting Henry Blanco. So the losses should continue to pile up for the Cubs and I look forward to many happy days ahead.

Greatest Neverland Party Ever

Insert your own inappropriate joke below.

Another Duke Player Indicted

When Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were indicted a little less than a month ago, District Attorney Mike Nifong promised to continue the investigation to get enough evidence to indict the 3rd attacker in the alleged rape of a 27-year-old black student at North Carolina Central University. Nifong appears to have followed through on that promise, as he sought and got an indictment today against a 3rd Duke lacrosse player, David Evans, who just graduated from Duke on Saturday. Evans strongly professed his innocence today in a press conference before he turned himself in to the authorities.

My reaction to this indictment is exactly the same as when the first two players were indicted. I have no opinion on the indictment because I have no idea what kind of evidence the prosecutors have against Evans, and anyone in the media who thinks they know what kind of case the prosecutors have against Evans is kidding themselves.

Is Congress Good for Anything?

I beginning to wonder about that above question each passing day as Congress finds new ways to embarrass themselves. They can't pass any immigration reform. They can't pass any lobbying reform. They long ago took a pass on Social Security reform. They do, however, seem quite apt at wasting our tax dollars, as evident in the in the pork-filled $109 billion emergency spending bill passed by the Senate that was MEANT for funding the war in Iraq and hurricane relief.

This next question pains me greatly being a registered Republican, but would it be better for the country if the Democrats regained control of at least one of the chambers of Congress this year? Again, this pains me greatly, but right now I have to say yes. It seems like the only way the Republicans are going to get their heads out of their ass is if they get the bitter taste of defeat. Now I certainly realize that the Democrats aren't going to make things much better. They don't seem too serious about Social Security or immigration reform and they're only talk about balancing the budget because the Republicans suck so bad it right now. In addition, if the worst excesses of the Democrats come to the surface (and they ignore a majority of the general public), we could see impeachment hearings of President Bush, which will accomplish only wasting more tax dollars.

So while in the short term, I think we as country are screwed whether the Democrats control one or both chambers of Congress or the Republicans maintain their chokehold over both chambers, I think in the long term, the country will be better off with the Democrats regaining control of the House or Senate this year. The Republicans will get their much needed wake-up call, return to their limited government roots and realize that hey you occasionally need to get things done in Congress. The Republicans then can run a campaign in 2008 on actual ideas and plans as opposed to the 2006 campaign of "Hey we don't suck quite as bad as the Democrats". If things develop as I've layed out here, we should have semi-competent federal governing returning around 2008.

The Good Times Keep Rolling

Charlie Weis has already gotten a verbal commitment from the top quarterback in the nation, the top tight end in the nation and now he has gotten a verbal commitment from one of the top receivers in the country, as Duval Kamara announced that he will attend Notre Dame in Fall 2007. Kamara is a 6'5", 209 pound receiver out New Jersey (Charlie loves the Jersey guys). Kamara likely projects as another Maurice Stovall, but with 4 years of good coaching instead of one. Kamara is a tall, lanky receiver who can go up and catch the ball in traffic, but does not have blazing speed. It's already quite apparent that the commitment of Clausen is paying dividends for the Irish:

"I didn't plan on making an early decision," said the 6-foot-5, 209-pounder who is one of the nation's top players. "But I knew going into the process that Notre Dame was one of my favorites and after the spring game weekend, I knew it was the place for me."

Many factors led to Kamara's decision.

"It came down to getting a great education, the tradition at Notre Dame, playing for coach Weis and getting to play with the best quarterback in the nation," he said. "Jimmy Clausen and I talked at the spring game and he's a good guy and a great quarterback. That's a factor for sure, but mostly it came down to comfort, academics and just it being Notre Dame."

So who else will Clausen help bring into the fold? Arrelious Benn? Greg Little? Deonote Thompson? Marc Tyler? We can only hope.

More USC Woes

What was a bad week for USC is turning into a bad month. First, a wannabe sports marketer let Reggie Bush's parents live a 3,000 square foot home rent free. Then their back-up quarterback got arrested for an alleged sexual assault. Then it was revealed that their star receiver was receiving some rent assistance from Matt Leinart's dad. Now former USC quarterback Matt Leinart is dating walking STD Paris Hilton. When will USC's woes end?